caller: the republicans are against a path to citizenship they love the cheap undocumented labor they are using in the oilfield. that is why bush only went after four companies in eight years for hiring illegals and obama has went after thousands. we need bernie sanders in there to get the grease out of the system, then the system can work. host: all right, that is our last color of the day on "the washington journal." we will show you the steps of the supreme court were arguments are set to begin momentarily. you can listen to the entire oral arguments, the entire 90 minutes expected to be released on friday. we will have them for you at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. have a great monday and we will see you right back here tomorrow

morning for "washington journal." >> the house of representatives convenes for legislative business at 2:00 p.m. to consider several bills, including one dealing with the homeland security to consolidate their headquarters. discuss workers who had been fired and preventing the iris preventing paying bonuses to their employees. the senate will continue working on a bill for the federal aviation. you can see the house live right here on c-span. new york's presidential primary is tomorrow. donald trump will hold a rally in buffalo, which you can see p.m.on c-span2 at 7:00

eastern. thetor bernie sanders said republican candidate made an ugly statement about hillary clinton. hillary."her "crooked because of the campaign finance system, he said the entire government is "crooked." live coverage of the residential race continues tuesday night for the new york state primary. join us for 9:00 p.m. eastern for speeches and reactions, taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. ♪ reporter: this week on "q&a"

sally denton, as she talks about her book "the profiteers," which takes a look at the largest , the largestration engineering and construction company in the world. brian lamb: sally denton, author of "the profiteers." in your notes section, you write this, i was denied access to caspar weinberger's papers. why? sally: i was really shocked about that and it turns out it is not really shocking at all, that a lot of public officials who give their papers to the library of congress, with restrictions that keep them from the public for as long as the family wants, and it was the of congress that made the arrangement with caspar weinberger's family or maybe with him personally, that they would be restricted and the son

would determine who would be able to view them. i was really kind of surprised but i have learned through my , friend, that it is a usual thing. i thought that maybe you would put personal papers and a situation like that, what not papers related to your position as secretary of defense or secretary of state. brian: what difference does that make to you in this book? sally: i think it would have created a treasure trove of documents for me relating to his role as secretary of defense, and i was looking specifically for his relationship, and the sentencing memoranda for the jonathan pollard case. brian: why does that relate to your book? sally: jonathan pollard has been spying for israel, as we all now know, and he had, among the

things he had given the israelis back in 1985, evidence of american companies building chemical plants in the middle east for israel's enemies and caspar weinberger became very interested in making sure that pollard did not get an easy sentence. notes, youher in the say the nsa was not helpful or , forthcoming. what is in an essay? sally: it is actually an economist agency within the department of energy, and it is in charge of the maintenance of the nuclear weapons laboratory, which figures commonly in my book. brian: why? sally: bechtel, the company i'm writing about manages most of

the nuclear weapons complex at this point. there are 17 labs. i was focused primarily on lawrence livermore, the weapons lab. brian: bechtel is what? sally: bechtel is the first major multinational company from the american west which is why , it interested me because i am from the west, fourth generation and i grew up in the , town that was their signature project way back in the 1930's. bechtel is the quintessential multinational company that is involved in all aspects of construction and engineering throughout the world. brian: how cooperative was bechtel with your project? sally: well, i didn't really i

, initially contacted bechtel early on when i was first researching it and they directed , me to the company website. i had actually been there before i had even wrote my book proposal to simon & schuster, so i was familiar with the website, but they directed me to the online press kit, and then when i found that everything i needed was not only available on the website, but there were three corporate histories that are very intensive, dating back through several generations, so between that i did not really , need any more from the corporate spokesperson. i also, i did apply for a media fellowship at the hoover institute, which is where i had been for my previous two books, and specifically with the interest of interviewing both stephen bechtel junior and george shultz, an executive and

i was denied that fellowship. brian: why? sally: they said it was because my project did not relate closely to any of the scholars there, and i could not imagine a book project that was more relevant to the hoover institute which is very supported, , long-standing support from the bechtel family and henry assinger, who was also bechtel consultant. i figured, if this book is not relevant, i will never write a book that is, apparently. brian: is george shultz still attached to hoover? sally: yes. brian: let's go back when he was confirmed in joe biden is in the chair during the confirmation hearing. joe biden: are you going to go back to bechtel? >> i have no plans, have given

no thought to what i will do. joe biden: let me tell you why i asked, there have been a number of questions on my colleagues who have done a lot of research on bechtel and its relationship with the arab world and everyone is aware of the saudi policy among whom they deal with, if they deal with the israelis. if, in fact, you were -- some are going to suggest to do that if in fact you are required to take the position in the interest of the united states of america that was viewed as being very supportive of israel and against the interest of saudi arabia, that you might very well be reluctant to do so because you would know that that would prevent you from ever being able to resume a position at bechtel. >> oh no. i do not have any such concern in my mind at all. brian: that was 1982.

there is a lot in there that i want to ask you about. he became secretary of state until 1989. did he ever go back to bechtel? sally: he went immediately back to bechtel and remains there, quite elderly. brian: 95. sally: he went immediately back yes. and was an active participant in the company since then. brian: does that make a difference to you? sally: you know, this is not a, i think what the main thrust of this book and what was surprising to me, this is not a gotcha story. this company is particularly interesting because it is one of the largest privately owned companies, so it does not have the same transparency that other public corporations do. i think that that kind of revolving door, the weinberger in shultz, that revolving door

has become common so it does not seem unusual anymore. at the time, it was really the beginning of, i would argue that bechtel created the revolving door, that there was never a company more integral with the u.s. government. and i mean the cooling off , period that is standard, it is almost a joke. i mean nobody pays attention , anymore. the lines are so blurred, to see joe biden, senator biden talking about that at that time, i cannot imagine that even being a discussion these days. it is so rare on capitol hill for someone to question a nominee about his corporate ties. brian: george shultz, secretary of labor, director of office of

management and budget, executive vice president at bechtel, president and director of bechtel, secretary of state, director and senior counsel at bechtel. is he still on the board? sally: you know, i don't know. another thing relating to the board of directors and shareholders, all of that you have to take it face value because they are not required to file anything with the security exchange commission or shareholder reports. what his relationship is or his family's relationship is is not declared. brian: and on weinberger, secretary of defense, chairperson of the federal trade commission in washington vice , president of general counsel, secretary of defense. you focus a lot on both weinberger and george shultz in the book.

tell us more about why. sally: not really. i don't think i focus a lot on that era, the reagan revolution as it relates to the expansion , of bechtel throughout the world, the expansion of the american west as a power center, and so reagan coming, both men, as you have said had been in the next and administration also a california political figure, but the theme of the book beginning with the hoover dam was really the first mega project, the creation of a public-private development that made california possible, made the american southwest possible. cities that would never have sprung up if it weren't for hoover dam. i really focus on, it is really just a few chapters of that era, but the reagan era for me really

represented a shift in economic power to the west. it was the sagebrush rebellion, much of what we see now going on with cliven bundy, the impulse underneath the surface came to the forefront during the reagan revolution. for him to tap bechtel executives to come into the cap -- cabinet was really, i think, newsworthy. brian: before we go on with the bechtel story, one time in your life you work for jack anderson. sally: i sure did. brian: and, i think, i have some things you said about him, but before i get to that, why did you work for him and when did you work for them? -- when did you work for him ? at g

sally: i worked for him in 1977 and 1978. i had been with a local newspaper in northern new mexico, and was just starting out in journalism and had had a series of explosive stories about the young women tied to a drug conspiracy. and jack brought me to washington as an intern initially and then hired me as a staff reporter. brian: how long did you work for him? sally: i think i was there close to two years. then i went to kentucky. brian: you write, like all great morals, jack anderson had feet of clay. he entered into business partnerships with nefarious characters, squandered an empire that by all rights belong to the public trust, protected sources who were manipulating him allowed his ego to dictate his , judgment and abandoned those who were most devoted to him. sally: well, you know when i , arrived there, he was legendary. most people do not even know who

-- most people don't even remember who he was. i grew up, my father was a lawyer to the publisher of the las vegas "sun" for many years, and drew pearson, who was jack anderson's project, he had been actively involved when it joe mccarthy was taking him on and he was trying to get hank indicted for murder. there was a long-standing relationship between the drew pearson jack anderson, , washington merry-go-round column and las vegas, nevada. when i arrived here, when i arrived in washington to work for jack, he was in the 1000 newspapers. we had "good morning america" three days a week, mutual broadcast radio five days a week. it was a wonderful empire, and i was just thinking the other day it was astounding for the , interns.

we had every week, there would be huge gunnysack mailbags from people all of the country saying, you need to come to my town and look at the corruption here, my city council, my county commission, my governor is corrupt. it was so rampant, it was stunning. but in the end when i say he , squandered it, there was so much talent when i was there. clark mullen hoff, james gravy, joe sphere, it was a hotbed of journalistic minds when a journalism was respected, on the forefront of investigative reporting, on the heels of watergate. it was really heavy stuff, and jack was unable to really

relinquish any control to any of the talent that was there and he was just hanging on and hanging on and ended up losing all of the -- many of the papers he had as syndication fell apart. it was just a sad relinquishment, i thought. brian: i cannot find this one, but it seems i read somewhere where you may have been critical of bob woodward. sally: i don't think so. brian: let's go back to the book, "the profiteers." what was the original title? sally: the original title was "behemoth." that was my working title for quite a while. the whole book change. i grew up in boulder city and my -- and when i first started exploring this book, i had done a cover story for science and technology magazine on the 75th anniversary of the hoover dam and i left boulder city in 1970 and was going home to visit family, i had not been back.

so, when i started looking at bechtel as a book project, i had no idea they had gone on for five generations and expanded throughout the entire universe, basically doing asteroids. so, i called it behemoth. and then, once i got deep into the research, four years of research and writing once i got , deep into the research, there was a quote from the gao about the profiteering, i cannot remove or the exact quote, but never before have there been so much money made by so few men at many at the tax payer's expense and i thought this was , more about profiteering than it is about anyone company. brian: have they ever done anything illegal? sally: i don't think so. that is one of the other stunning things, that all of this is legal. [laughter]

this is what i write, that this is not a biography of this family as a as another thing i found going on, the family was really not interesting. they were interesting for what they represented, not for themselves as characters. but, they were representative of a larger thrust and philosophy of american business and american politics and american foreign policy. brian: where did stephen bechtel sr. fit in all of the bechtels? sally: the company starts with warren bechtel who was an old-fashioned american western. the hoover dam was really his project, his protege. it was called six companies, but there were actually a companies. -- there were actually eight companies. this was a huge hoover project, to channel the colorado, the

raging colorado river to provide water and irrigation and electricity, primarily to southern california. bechtel got the contract with, it companies but they called themselves, six companies after the chinese family. there was no company in the american west that was big enough to tackle this job. there was arguably not a company in the east. all of these companies came together to put up the money and to get the bid to build this dam. brian: is kaiser the same one that built the car, the hj kaiser automobile? sally: i think so and also the

panama canal. brian: here is a video of stephen bechtel senior, assuming not alive anymore. let's watch this. sally: no. >> we received considerable press, comments about what would happen. i discussed it with my father. meanwhile, my father had been talking with his friends in the utah construction company, and i believe they approached dad and dad talked with henry kaiser who was a partner about whether we ought to be interested in the investment or not. we knew it was a big job, an important job, knew had to be

done well. there was a certain amount of expertise that no one had had before. from that group of people that were there, or some of the strongest men in the construction industry. brian: what was he like and how important was he to the building of the company? sally: i think he was really significant in taking the company to the next phase. in fact, all of these generations, five generations of bechtel men and they all do that in their own way. his father, warren, died quite young under mysterious circumstances in moscow in 1933, and stephen senior, it is really just stephen but he names his , son stephen, so i designate between senior and junior and others do, too. he is the one after the dam was built warren did not see to live , the dam built, and when he died there was a struggle for the bechtel family fortune and company, and stephen, the middle

son ended up taking charge. , it was his relationship with john mccone, who was a college classmate from uc berkeley that , really signifies his relationship with john maccallum, who had worked for consolidated steel which , provided all of the steel for the hoover dam, a massive contract, as you can imagine, and also a relative of his wife, a man named john simpson who was , partners with the shorter firm -- schroeder firm in new york. this really launched bechtel from a relatively small, not small but in the american west, , huge, but still an american company and launched it into the , international intrigue leading into world war ii.

he became director of the cia under john f. kennedy. brian: how long was he there? sally: he was not there very long. lbj did keep them on for a short time after the kennedy assassination. brian: was he a republican or a democrat? or did that matter? sally: he was a republican although i do not know if that , matters. they had all been forged from this radically reactionary anti-communist, russian containment soviet containment , policy that was driving american foreign policy at the time, and he was very representative of that. brian: why did he leave the cia? sally: i am not sure why he left the cia. i didn't really go into that. at that time, he had broken, not

broken, but it was no longer bechtel-mccone, so i did not shift much into that, until he goes on to be a director for itt , and was involved in the coup in chile. brian: did any of the bechtels serve in government? sally: no. well, they serve on different think tanks, foreign policy advisement. i think steve, jr. was on the executive bank or one of the advisory. they are in and out of advisory positions, not really in government. brian: this is a bit tedious but i want to read a paragraph, not the whole thing, just the people have an understanding of the kind of things bechtel has been contracted to do. you say here specializing in , what it calls projects, it

receives $24 billion in new contracts during 2013. it's 55,000 employees, most of whom are subcontractors, are divided into different services. its website lists dozens of signature projects that read like a roundup of every high profile undertaking of the world. the channel tunnel project from britain to france, the metrorail in washington dc, the bay area rapid transit system, the san francisco-oakland bay bridge. is that the new one? sally: no, that is the old one. brian: the trans-atlantic , the big dig, tip

o'neill's big project, speaker of the house and what happened with that? sally: well, i mean you know, , when i started looking at all of this and i decided piece in "construction magazine" yesterday on various projects in the world, i cannot keep up with all of these projects and every single one of them is a complete story in in of itself. there was a book written recently, which delves deeply date -- d projectig , and the kind of things i think are synonymous with bechtel, which is cost overruns, safety violations. "the boston globe" did a significant expose, must of been there spotlight team, so that was one of the, i just looked at

the public record on that, i did not dive into it, delve into it myself. a ceiling fell and killed a woman. they had to pay out more than $400 million. [video clip] >> >> we are here to announce that an agreement has been reached between the united states in the management consultants for the tunnel project which is known as the big dig, as well as several of the big dig designers. the big dig management consultant, bechtel, bechtel infrastructure corporation has agreed to pay the united states and the commonwealth over $407 million to resolve criminal and civil liabilities in connection with the collapse, or part of the i 90 connector tunnel walls of the tip

o'neill tunnel. brian: at the time, it was $100 billion plus and you alluded to the fact that octal has the cost -- bechtel has the cost plus contract. the they start that? sally denton: i think bechtel senior and john mccone, that was there creation. you do a complete project, turn it over and the owner turns it on. that was, again, that is like the revolving door with multinational business models throughout the world. i think they were the first company that came up with that, which as you know, you have a contract for a cost and the government guarantees you a percentage of 10% to 30% profit. brian: in your book, you go on

to say, the construction of 95 airports throughout the world, including hong kong international, london, doah, las vegas. it is built 17,000 miles of roads, 100 tunnels, 30 bridges, and 2500 entire communities, including the futuristic saudi arabian city. $20 billion project known as the largest project and construction history. is there any other company in the world as large as bechtel? sally: i don't think so. i think engineering record named it the largest engineering company in the world. it is very difficult to explore sometimes because there are all of these consortiums. one of the spending things again, the book is so full of

ironies, there was so little litigation. you would think, you just went through the litany of these projects throughout the world, and i kept thinking, well, how come their rivals are not suing them? where are the competitors here? you would think the courts would be filled with lawsuits and wrongful terminations. there finally was one of those. i realized in the midst of this because i am very research , intensive, that is the kind of work i do, and this is my eighth book, and i had a fantastic fellowship at the library of congress with research access that i had never had before. brian: that was the $50,000 fellowship. did they just get

that to you? sally: well, it is based on the research project so i had applied for that. brian: when did you get that? sally: i was there during the fall of 2014 in spring of 2015. brian: how did you get it? sally: i applied through the black mountain institute in las vegas, and there are several writing fellowships there and i had applied for a fellowship which is a $60,000 fellowship at the black mountain institute because i thought that this would be very nevada-centric, this book. the director called me and said, i think you may be interested in this fellowship at the library of congress, and i jumped at that opportunity. brian: how did they determine that you were the one? sally: i don't know. i know that the library and rian personally selects

bids. he personally selected the fellow, a relationship he had with the black mountain institute, which is something harry reid helped get for unlv. it is a fantastic fellowship. to answer your question, what was the question? [laughter] researching the different projects throughout the world, and the extensive, the reach of that. when i first had applied to the black mountain, i thought i would be doing my research and nevada and thought it was a real western company, and it was not until i got to the library of congress, and started looking at the contracts that it had with the u.s. government that not only is it the largest department of energy contractor,

it is one of the top department of defense contractors as well. brian: background, he owned metromedia corporation. he gave to the library of $69 million congress that helps fund these projects, sold his company for $4 billion years ago. do they have any expectation of you once they give you that $60,000, or you -- or can you write anything you want? sally well, you are supposed to : write whatever they gave you, it is like the guggenheim, you are given it for a particular project. if you, you know, at the thrust of your scholarly approach changes, i am sure that would be fine, but i just know i am still at the black mountain institute at unlv right now and looking at , the applications for the fellowship right now, and

selecting everyone, and there are a lot, a lot of the fellowships are for fiction, so i'm really focused on the nonfiction ones there. brian: what would bechtel be today without the united states government? be a little road grading firm. [laughter] they were building dams. warren, the debt, had a couple meals and a steam shovel, and i think it is one of the other ironies to be so antigovernment , and your entire fortune you are to the government. brian: how were they antigovernment? sally: basically, anti-regulation, let's keep government out of our business, just leave us alone to do our work. , or free-trade

candidates. aboutrhetoric is all privacy and letting this company do what it thinks is in the best interest of the united states, anti-first amendment, anti-press. how are they anti-first amendment? sally: they are anti-any exposure or transparency. brian: would you be transparent if you are a private company like they are? sally: no, i think that is the reason they are a private company. i think one of the obvious questions is and you alluded to it, if not bechtel who? who else is united states going to get to build these projects throughout the world? and, i think, you know, it is , if for it to be bechtel the american taxpayer is paying for, it seems the american taxpayer should have some access to information about the contracts, the amount of money,

the workers' safety, the political relationships. brian: where is their main headquarters located? sally: san francisco. they have offices throughout the world. i just read yesterday the main headquarters for the middle east division is in west virginia. it had been in maryland and was recently moved to virginia, so apparently now in west virginia. but they have offices all over the world. brian: here is bechtel corporation video and this will move the subject over to the middle east so we can get your , background on that. >> it was jobs like hoover dam and the bay bridge that taught steve, sr. to think big. in 1940, he built a pipeline and a road through a venezuelan jungle, that set the stage for meeting the nations cause for global work during times of

crisis. in the the bechtel brothers 1940's, mobilized for world war ii. across frozen, unexplored yukon countries, they built a 16 mile -- 1600 mile pipeline to get military field to alaska. they built liberty ships, tanks and bases across the pacific. in 1944, steve gave saudi prince a model tanker a harbinger of , projects they would soon undertake in saudi arabia. one of the first jobs, the trans-arabian pipeline that helped fuel europe's postwar recovery. brian: trans-arabian pipeline. how much did they make over the pipeline? sally: i do not remember what the prophets were, but they were really precedent setting in that this is the first company to really go into the middle east at a time that was just being developed for, if you look at the bechtel company it starts

with the -- after hoover dam it is the roads the automobile had , just been developed in the roads and in a needed roads and got the first government contract to build a highway in california, and then oil, and then they expand more oil for the vehicles, so they are at the forefront of the whole industrialization of america at that time, and it was those relationships that steve bechtel , sr. developed that came throughout the middle east would go on to not just enrich them but to serve a purpose for american expansionism abroad. brian: what else have they done in saudi arabia? palacesell, they built and the entire infrastructure, and moved from there into kuwait and yemen. basically throughout the middle east, but you know, to me, when

i began this, i started thinking, there were a couple of quotes about, we were ambassadors with bulldozers and a lot of these countries would say, first comes bechtel and then comes the u.s. government, and initially i started thinking, when i started the project, i thought that bechtel was the corporate arm of the u.s. government, a model forged with the hoover dam that overtook the u.s. army corps of engineer and became america's , builder. but by the end of the book, generations later, i started thinking the government was more like the public policy arm of bechtel than the other way around. brian: what impact did george shultz and weinberger have on getting government contracts? they: well, i think that weighed heavily in influence,

when you got somebody with that stature, and certainly, when you have people like that representing the company abroad and foreign lands, that conveys to the governments in these foreign lands, this company has the full support of the government behind them. brian: here is a man i used to see a lot of in the reagan administration. he was the u.s. aid administrator, building things in the middle east. let's watch this interview we did in the middle east back in 2003. [video clip] >> we will see an improvement in public service that affect the great mass of the iraqi people within the next two months, electricity system, water system, a critical part of what you need in an arid climate and what you need for public service. you have to have electricity and , we now have made an agreement to the ambassador for bechtel

and the other contractors we cap in here to essentially provide the overall management and the accountability system and the purchase of equipment like generators. brian: i understand he worked for bechtel before he had this job. sally: i think he oversaw part of the big dig project. there was some sort of historical relationship there. did paul brenner work for bechtel? sally: i don't think he worked for bechtel, but he obviously oversaw the distribution of the contracts, the major contracts that bechtel got in iraq which turned out to be disastrous, pretty much. brian: why? sally: the inspector general's report was devastating toward the results of the iraq reconstruction.

brian: were they penalized in any way? sally: i don't think they were penalized. they kind of abandoned, after losing several employees who had , been killed, it was not the success that they had hoped and they did not get the profits they were expecting. also relating to the children's , hospital. brian: how many of their contracts with united states government are sole sourced, the only ones that compete for and they get it directly? sally: you know, i think that is impossible to know. when you are looking at the department of energy and -- and the department of defense and sources without a bid. brian: yeah. sally: all of that is, you have to take them at face value because many of these projects, because the nature of national

security, we do not even know, the taxpayer does not even know how much they are for. they have to have classified clearances, and the contractors have to be, have to have their own security clearances and much of it is so shrouded in just, especially now since post-9/11, shrouded in the whole national security realm of mystery and lack of exposure. brian: you know a fellow named madurese? -- mat reeves.

brian: sally denton: i do not know them, that he said my sources, he loves my sources. brian lamb: he did say various left-wing obsessions make regular appearances in "the profiteers." what do you say to that? various left-wing obsessions make appearances in "the profiteers." sally: i don't know if they are appearances. one of the, i know he pointed out a factual inaccuracy i identified, the national security advisor all lower caps when he was part of the staff. i actually wrote a letter to the editor and said in the years i was married to roger morris he always referred to himself as a national security advisor in all lower caps so i decided to use , the primary source there. a book withrote roger morris sacco -- roger

morris? sally: yes. when were you married? sally: until 1991. brian: he was involved in the kennedy ministration? sally: not kennedy, johnson. johnson and eisenhower. he worked for nixon and left a during the invasion of cambodia, long before i was married to him or was even in washington with , jack anderson. brian: let me read a little more -- bechtel's success has long been grist for observers like miss denton. she is so consumed with tarring bechtel as a military industrial prototype that she never addresses a fundamental question, how does the company function at the ground level? clearly bechtel employees

engineers, managers and workers who have the knowledge and prowess needed to complete massive projects of intricate design. alas, such people are largely invisible in this corporate, or empire, account. what is your reaction to this criticism? sally: i think he is right. i am really focused on the military-industrial prototypes there, and i think all of the americas should be. i do not agree that i do not address the workmanship on the ground. i have several chapters about many of the projects and exactly , what kind of, dating back to the hoover dam, exactly what the working conditions were all the way up to the massive layoff at the laboratory, and the cleanup, the disastrous cleanup in washington.

i mean, there are many chapters relating to exactly what he says i did not address. brian: the lawrence livermore laboratory was controversial because of why? the bechtel are years -- the bechtel years? the laboratory, in most americans do not even know this, under president george w. bush in 2007, the nuclear weapons complex was privatized with bechtel at the helm. and they got their billion-dollar contract to manage several of the facilities that i really -- but i really focus on livermore. these were the crown jewels of the manhattan project, so this is where the bombs are made or being made or were being made, now being modernized. it was always done as a kind of,

always managed by the university of california consortium, dating back to oppenheimer, and always part of keeping nuclear weapons out of private industry. when the labs were effectively privatized by bush with bechtel, they came in and the first thing they did was fire 450 people. this was the place i was able to windowittle bit of transparency and the company , that i had not been able to before, because most of their contracts, their labor-relations throughout the world require arbitration, which is effectively a private judicial, i remarked earlier, there was such a lack of litigation involving this company.

so then i realized it is because , they are all about arbitration which is private, see do not which you do not have the same rules of evidence she every discovery. -- evidentairy discovery. there was an opening for a lawyer in california to file a lost determination lawsuit on behalf of of 140 of them which opened it up for discovery, and that was just a gold mine of information for me. brian: do you have any idea how much the bechtel family has made over the years? sally: well, hundreds and hundreds and millions and billions. they report these time to time on their website, but you just have to take them at their word. brian: you have a quote beside each of the bechtels in the front of the book.

we talked about stephen bechtel, senior dale. is stephen bechtel, junior del ?live sally: yes. brian: does he have anything to do with the company? sally: he is quite elderly as well. i think he is an advisor to the hoover institute, and i am sure he is well retired. brian: there is no reason for people to hear of us. we are not selling to the public. sally: i think that was a quote he gave to newsweek in response for a request for an interview, and so there is no reason to give an interview, we are not public. i mean, that was so symbolic on how they viewed themselves as above and beyond the american taxpayer. brian: the next person to run the company, riley bechtel. where is he now? sally: he stepped down to his

son. brian: we will never be a conglomerate. at least not on my watch. sally: and again under bechtel , it became more of a conglomerate than ever with consortiums throughout the world and building on every continent. it is exhausting to read the this which i did in international construction magazine yesterday. the current projects are just staggering. brian: well, they must do something right. sally: well, they must know how to build. bechtel?d brendan signifies a new generation of sensibility. brian: who is he? sally: he is the only son of

riley and has taken over the company. he has an education from middlebury college, which is unusual for that family, which has been pretty conservative. a liberal arts education, and he is young, 30's, and it is a new world. brian: you alluded to this earlier, and here is some video of jonathan pollard who i think when you wrote this originally, he was still in prison. did you have to change your book? sally: i knew there was a release coming, or the chances of him being paroled or good, so -- of being paroled were good so , i had written the paragraph for that purpose. brian: here is some video of him being released. [video clip] after 30 years in prison, and victims by, jonathan pollard will be a free man, sort of. the now 61-year-old be placed on

five years probation, during which he will not be allowed to leave the country. pollard, a former civilian navy intelligence analyst, spied for israel during the 1980's and was arrested in 1985 in charge in 1987 with passing secret u.s. documents to the israeli government. pollard's imprisonment has been a bone of contention between the united states and israel for decades. his supporters saying the punishment he received was too harsh because israel is a u.s. ally. brian: again, jonathan pollard, how does he play in this book and his relationship to weinberger and the attitude of the bechtel people about israel? -- in hisl, he had own words, he had been encouraged, or was inspired to spy for israel. he was working for the office of naval intelligence and came upon , information about chemical

weapons plants being built by american companies in syria and iraq, and in libya and he went , to his superior and told him, we have a treaty with israel. they need to know enemies are getting armed with chemical weapons. he was told by his officer, his boss, as he recounted, the boss laughed, and said, we cannot tell the jews about this, they are sensitive about gas, which was a reference to the gas the nazis used so it was impetus on his part to begin spying for israel which he did. -- which he did for the next 18

months. he pled guilty and was expecting to get a two-year sentence, that was the plea bargain that he had made with the u.s. government, but when he pled guilty, he was given a life sentence. and the justification for that was a sentencing memoranda written by weinberger, secretary of defense. pollard would have been in the defense department at that time, about the extensive damage that had been done by what pollard gave to the israelis. i think the justification was also for the life sentence, was that he had violated his plea agreement by speaking with wolf blitzer who went on to write a book about it. brian: weinberger also, i do not remember the legal language, but he perched himself and the iran

conference but was pardoned by george h.w. bush. what is your take on weinberger's relationship to saudi arabia and also george shultz and saddam hussein? sally: yeah. you know, there was a time, i think weinberger and george shultz represented a direct shift from the american government more toward a way from israel and more toward the arab state. that was certainly felt by the israelis at the time, and of course the israelis were always skeptical of bechtel dating back to the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's in the era of boycott, and there was always some, a little bit of skepticism that the israelis felt toward bechtel. they were building throughout the middle east, but no projects in israel. brian: do you think after your

research, there was a direct connection? sally: between? brian: the attitude of caspar weinberger in israel? sally: no, i don't think so. weinberger was rabid on the subject of israel and george shultz was really a statesman, and he was going forward with a policy, influencing reagan, but i think they were in locked step with each other. i think caspar weinberger was more of a neocon. brian: i have 30 seconds. this is an unfair question to ask, why did george shultz and weinberger not get along? they both worked for bechtel and republican administrations. noty: they apparently did get along going back to the next and administration. they were very different men in temperament and it just seemed like it was a legendary battle

between the two. brian: george shultz is a very much alive and is 95-years-old, will turn 96 at the end of this year. our guest has been sally denton and her book is "the profiteers: , bechtel and the men who built the world." thank you very much. sally: thank you. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. the programs are also available as c-span podcasts.

>> the bechtel corporation issued a statement in response to sally denton's book and it in part, "our employees consistently deliver our projects collaboratively, ethically, transparently, and responsibly for the benefit of our customers and the communities where we work and live. none of this is reflected in "the profiteers" which contain serious errors and misrepresentations. for instance, bechtel had no involvement in building the infrastructure here for the vietnam war, constructing the republican palace and the u.s. embassy in iraq, or the pollard spy case. those claims in the book and others are entirely false as is the underlying premise of the can bethat statement found on c-span.org. the campaign 2016 bus continues its travel to visit winners from

this years student cam competition. nevada tosited sparks visit her third prize documentary on the wild horse population in the united states titled "wildhorse management." we met with student cam winners in new york, including a visit where theygo, recognized jackie power interesting cooper. joinedswoman judy chu friends, family, and classmates to celebrate second prize winners. special thanks to our cable partners for helping to coordinate these community visits. every weekday, be sure to watch one of the top 21 winning 50 a.m. at 6:

eastern before "washington journal." oning up in two hours c-span2, tom price will discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget and his ideas for long-term budget reform. he will speak to the committee for a responsible federal budget. you will watch that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. our live coverage of the presidential race continues tuesday night for the new york state primary. stand for 9:00 you election results, and your reaction. taking you to the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. ms. swain: welcome to c-span's "newsmakers." the house of representatives is once again in budget battles and our guest this week is in the middle of that. congressman jim jordan, republican of ohio representing the fourth district in that state and he is the chairman of the freedom caucus fiscal conservatives in the house of representatives.

thanks for being with us. rep. jordan: good to be with you all. ms. swain: questioning him this week is erica werner of the associated press, the chief congressional reporter, and susan ferrechio comes back to our set, chief correspondent for "the washington examiner." thanks for being here, both of you. >> great to be here. ms. werner: wonderful. mr. jordan, thank you. friday as you know is the budget deadline and you will be blowing through it. you will be missing the deadline for the first time in six years largely because of opposition from the freedom caucus. how do you justify and explain that, and does it matter? rep. jordan: the only thing worse than not doing the budget is spending more money. you have to look at this in the real world context of the debt just hit $19 trillion. cbo reported six weeks ago this year's shortfall, this year's annual deficit is going to be $105 billion higher than expected. within that context, we said look, maybe we should not spend $30 billion more. maybe we should actually at least hold the line on spending to start to deal with the fiscal

mess we are in. after all, every single-family, every single government, every single school district, township, city, state has to do that, but the one entity that does not just happens to be the one that has the $19 trillion debt. be think that is just good common sense. we would love to have a budget. bill -- let'she write the bill and start the process, but there is trouble getting folks for that as well. we will see. ms. ferrechio: following up on that, congress does not have to pass a budget, but they are obligated to pass the appropriation bills. there are 12 of them and they are needed to fund the federal government by september 30. how do you foresee the lack of a budget deal playing into the appropriations process? will the house freedom caucus, about 40 members that you guys have, will you be opposing appropriations bills that adhere to the deal set last year which is $1.07 trillion? rep. jordan: depends on what is in the bill. depends on if it is for our nation's military, which we think we're supposed to spend your tax dollars on so it

depends on the bill. i supported a number of the appropriation bills in the past. one thing to remember though in the five years we have been in the majority and we had this split government with the senate and the white house being in the other party's hands, these appropriation bills, 60 appropriation bills. you know how many we have passed the house and the senate and actually been signed by the president? one, and that was the dhs bill, a compromise bill we were supposed to make a stand on. that was dealing with the immigration executive amnesty order. one out of 60. i don't know if the budget process in itself has a whole lot of bearing frankly based on history on how many of probation bills get passed or don't get passed. what we will look at is just like we have been in the past. when the bills come up in the house of representatives, we look at the individual bill, we evaluate it, the policy that is in it, spending levels, and we make a decision, but many of our members supported a number of appropriation bills, particularly the ones dealing with the military.

ms. ferrechio: do you foresee an omnibus bill where a lot of things are combined into one big measure like we have been seeing over the past decade or so? do you think that there will be individual bills signed into law for the first time in many years? do you think that can happen? rep. jordan: we hope so. we think so. the speaker has talked about that and i think he is right to talk about that and said that is the goal, but as you point out in your question, history is a good predictor of the future as well. many times, we have had to go to an omnibus or cr or what have you and we may have to do that again. we understand that, but what we think we have to focus on is with the voters sent us here to do, what the freedom caucus is all about, which is standing up and fighting for the countless number of families around this country who feel like washington has forgotten them. we are supposed to do that. they understand they cannot do what washington does. we need to start control spending, and that is what we are advocating our budget in our approach to the entire appropriations process. ms. werner: you mentioned a cr, which would be a continuing

resolution, continuing the current budget level into the next fiscal year. and as you know, the argument coming out of speaker ryan's office is that the senate will not support the lower budget numbers that you all advocate so that the inevitable result of your position is that there will be a cr continuing the current budget level which is almost the same as the bipartisan deal struck last year, so what is the point then of the position you are taking? rep. jordan: the point is to do the right thing. that is always the point. the point is to do what we told the voters we were going to do. the point is to recognize that this country has a serious fiscal problem, that the debt is now $19 trillion. the point is to do exactly what we told the voters we were going to do. the voters who elected us to do what we said. just because the senate says if you do not do it our way, we will take the football and go home does not meet we should abandon doing what we told the voters we were going to do and what they elected us to do.

i had breakfast yesterday with pat cadell, and he gave me three , i thought interesting numbers , in the surveys he has done of the american public. 70, 60, 80. 70% of the american people think our country is in decline. 60% of americans think they are better off than their parents, but their kids will be worse off than them. 80% of americans think this place is fixed. the game is rigged against average middle-class families. one of the reasons they think that is because the very people they elected to come change it are not willing to fight for what they said they were going to change and what they were elected to do. our position is look, we want to offer positive solutions. we think we are doing that in a number of areas. we are working on welfare reform, the tax problem, and all kinds of things we think makes sense, but we also understand that you cannot spend more than you take in. and by the way, we are saying let us hold the line on spending. we are not advocating cutting it. we are just saying and don't forget 170 million republicans

-- 170 republicans voted against the boehner-obama agreement. a majority of the republicans in the senate voted against it. now they are telling us unless you increase the spending and agree to the agreement that they voted against also somehow we will take our football and go home. that makes no sense to me and frankly makes no sense to the americans and that is why 80% of them think the game is rigged in washington. ms. ferrechio: on that note, it sounds like he will definitely be colliding with the republican leadership on spending in the coming months. i know there is a new speaker, paul ryan. he took the job in late october last year and he really had to win over conservatives before that he could get a vote to become speaker, and i think he spent a lot of time courting you and numbers of the house freedom caucus. i just wondered if you could at this moment give us what you think would be a good grade for ryan right now. what would his letter grade be at this moment and why? rep. jordan: you used the term colliding. i don't view it as colliding. i view it as we are working with our colleagues to try to reach an agreement that we think is consistent with what we told the voters, consistent with what our

party should stand for, and consistent with what reflects the fiscal situation, environment, the context we find ourselves in. we don't view it as colliding at all. we view it as we are having a healthy debate, and that is what legislative bodies do, and that is what conferences, the republican conference should do. i don't give people letter grades. i think speaker ryan is doing a good job in communicating a vision that makes sense for middle-class families, make s sense for our country saying look, we need to reform the tax code. everyone knows it is broken. say that all the time back home to small business owners and people in the fourth congressional district of ohio. when you have a tax code that says half the population on the personal side you don't have to , participate in the main tax code. you have a tax code that is broken. on the corporate side, when you say america is going to have the highest rate in the world, that is stupid. if you have a tax code that is broken and stupid, you might want to throw it out and you might want to start over, and everyone gets the joke.

everyone gets it. speaker ryan is saying start over with one that makes sense need toelp and we reform health care to people who need it but also incentivize work and help people get to a better position in life. my guess is he has probably done in what has he been speaker now, six or seven months? i bet he has done more press events and more tv appearances than speaker boehner did in 4.5 years. i might be wrong with that, but it sure seems that way. that is important for the current leader of our party to go out there and articulate a message that is rooted in conservative principles, rooted in the values that i think make our country great in the first place, and talk about the things that are going to help middle-class families. i think he is doing it, and that is a positive thing. that is something we wanted from the new speaker -- to be a more public face for our party. ms. swain: how important was he to you and members of the caucus that he held a press conference this week saying definitively that he was not going to be a presidential candidate? it means his focus remains in

the house of representatives. rep. jordan: i think that is good. i take paul at what exactly he said. he said i am not running for president. i want to be speaker of the house. i want to do the job and articulate the principles and visions in some of these key policy areas that we need to do to get our country back on the right path, to address where the 70%, 60%, 80% numbers i just talked about with the american people think we need to go. i think it is great that the speaker is focused on being a good speaker and communicating our vision for the country. ms. ferrechio: what do you see in terms of parallels between the focus on outsider candidates in the presidential election and your movement in congress? there has been a lot of newcomers in congress in recent years who have come in with support of the tea party with promises to lower government spending, less government, reform the tax code. do you connect what you're doing in congress with the sort of desire amongst the voters for a candidate that is not from insider washington that wants to reform the system, wants to

change the status quo? do you see any connection between that? rep. jordan: i will let the voters and the american people decide that. what i do think is this place does need to change and we need people to come in here with a different perspective and a perspective that says too often i think this town is about big companies with lobbyists and consultants cozying up to big government and getting special deals at the expense of regular voters, regular families. in that context, i think many times voters want the outsider. we just had a big race in ohio in the district next to ours, a special election in john boehner's congressional district. 15 people ran. one was a state senator, one was a state rep. one of those guys is going to win. we happened to endorse and many freedom caucus members supported an outsider. never really been in office. west point grad. army ranger, served our country, small business owner. warren davidson. in a 15 way race, he got 33% of the vote and kicked the tails of

these and smacked them all around. it was a great race. people said this is the kind of guy we want with that kind of background. here is a guy we think and come can come to congress and fight for the things we care about. so now, i don't know how much we have to do with that, but i supported him. i thought he was a guy that would come here and help us change this place and do what the vast majority of the american people want us to get done. we are going to keep doing it. we are in a race, in marlin stutzman's race. we are helping jim banks. first time we did independent expenditure on the house freedom fund for jim banks. we will try to elect people who we think come with that attitude and are willing to change this place. ms. werner: of course, you are from ohio. the governor of your state is one of the remaining candidates for president. you have not endorsed him.

senator portman and other elected officials in your state have. why not? rep. jordan: well, look. i said this many times. we are having a whale of a fight, and i always equate it to sports, in the semi finals. my attitude is you let them fight it out in the semi final and see who wins. whoever that is, knowing that it will likely be secretary clinton on the other side, we need to support whoever our nominee is. i do think it is interesting that in so many states some of the ones coming up maybe a little different, but in many of the states that have happened thus far, and we have had a lot of elections. whether it is primaries or caucuses, mr. cruz and mr. trump are sometimes getting as high as 80% of the vote. back to susan's question. that sort of shows this outsider antiestablishment movement is really strong, and i think it is

a reflection of why those two are the ones who are in first and second and governor kasich, who i think has done a nice job as governor, is in third. ms. ferrechio: what do you make of the republican national committee's reaction to the outsider vibe of this election with ted cruz and donald trump getting a majority of votes? as you say, they had that. they have a majority of the support, but it sounds like the republican national committee elders want to try to maybe rig the system so somebody in the establishment might become the nominee. are you wary of that happening? rep. jordan: that would be just a huge mistake. it would be completely wrong. any type of rigging or a perception that the party hierarchy is trying to influence and change things so that the two guys at the top are denied

the nomination i think that's within a fair contest commuted to cleveland, and a contestant convention, which it certainly looks like it is going to be, and the way it works and you have several ballots and someone emerges -- as long as it is done in a fair way, that is how the process works. ms. ferrechio: would it be fair if kasich got the nomination? he with only winning one state and the other two? would that be fair? rep. jordan: i think there are real concerns if for example, right now, the 8 state requirement is in play. you start changing things like that and technically i understand that the rules committee can do that, but you start doing things like that and it certainly creates a perception that wait a minute, they are trying to change. my background is in the sport of wrestling. i have never been in a single wrestling match where midway through the match the change the -- they change the scoring system. they change the rules. never happened. i think there is a general concern that people are going to have if you start seeing things like that continue to happen,

then it does become, even if it is technically allowed, then it does become potentially rigging the game, and that is my concern because i think in a year where in so many states, 70%, 80% of the voters saying we want something antiestablishment, that is a problem. ms. swain: we have 10 minutes left. ms. werner: switching gears, you mentioned secretary clinton. you, of course, serve on the benghazi committee. are you going to meet your self-declared deadline of releasing your report this summer? have you seen a smoking gun or anything new in some of the recent documents that you have seen? do you believe that hillary clinton might be indicted? rep. jordan: that is one of the most loaded questions i have ever gotten in my time of politics. i hope we get it released as soon as possible. it would certainly have helped this entire process if we had a much more accommodating, much more helpful partner from the executive branch, particularly the state department. i have never seen -- it is

almost in some ways the state department is worse than the irs. i was digging into the irs when they targeted conservative groups, so it would have been a lot more helpful if they had been helpful and it would have made things move much faster. i do believe the chairman is committed to get this out early summer, as quickly as possible. we are working on that. whether she is indicted or not, who knows? i do think it is interesting that this past weekend the president did the same thing he did with the irs scandal. he went on tv and basically said there is nothing there, just like he went on tv a few years ago and said relative to the targeting by the internal revenue service that there is no corruption, not even a smidgen. i think that is so sad when the head of the executive branch prejudges a case that is in the middle of an ongoing investigation. you should not have that in america. if that does not send a signal to the attorney general without ever having to talk with her,

send an e-mail, or whatever, then i don't know what does of course we know what happened in the irs. we had all kinds of evidence that showed intent from warner and others to systematically target conservative groups. no one was indicted. i think that is likely to happen here, but who knows? the one thing on the other side of the ledger that makes a small -- us all step back and think wait a minute is the fact that you don't give people immunity just because you like them, right? the guy who set it all up, the server guy was given immunity. you know how this works. you give immunity to someone because you know what they are going to say and what they have to testify to and that is going to help you get to look at igher up on the ladder. we will see. what i do know is libya alone should disqualify this lady from being president. this was her baby. she is the one wanted to get rid of qaddafi. she is the one who persuaded i think the white house, the arab league, went to the u.n. to make this happen.

when it happens, then there is repeated requests for additional security, and the state department basically says could qaddafi is gone, we put our ambassadors in place. we will treat this as a normal situation. this was anything but normal. in fact, the government in control was called the transitional national government. transitional -- key term. you can allow host nation security to buttress your own security and that will be good enough like this was france or great britain or something? and then there is a repeated request for security. those are denied, and actually what they had was reduced. and then the tragedy happens on september 11, 2012, and then because it is 56 days before an election, this lady tells one thing privately to her family, it was a terrorist attack, and she tells the american people with her statement at 10:08 on the night of the attack -- think about this. 10:08, woods is still on the roof of the annex fighting to save his fellow countrymen, fighting for his life, and this lady tells the american people something that is not true.

she says some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. which raises the first question, who the heck talks like that? only people trying to deceive, right? because what did she say to the egyptian president the next day? she said we know it was a terrorist attack. we know the video had nothing to do with it. it was a planned attack, not a protest. not we think. not evidence kind of shows. we know. so one thing privately, the truth. publicly to the american people, she does not give it to us straight. when you look at all of that and you say this lady wants to be commander in chief, i think that is a problem. ms. werner: in your view, have you seen evidence that suggests that regardless of what the justice department may do for political reasons arguably that she should in fact be indicted on these criminal charges? rep. jordan: i am not saying that. all i'm saying is that what i know from our investigation and what i highlighted in the

hearing in october when secretary clinton came in front of the committee was that i think she told one story privately that i think was consistent with the fact i have seen, consistent with the truth. what she told her family, what she told the egyptian president, and she told an entirely different story to the american people. more importantly, an entirely different story to the families of the people who give their lives for the country. and she did that in my judgment because it was 56 days before an election and they had this narrative out there that jim was alive, bin laden was dead, al qaeda was on the run, and suddenly you have this happen. wait a minute. this cannot be our fault. we cannot be blamed for it. it has to be some else's fault. i know, let us blame it on a video no one has ever seen. i think that is what they did. when the american people look at the evidence, just like we did in the meeting, they will reach

the same kind of conclusion. ms. swain: we have five minutes left. ms. ferrechio: let me ask you a quick question on another topic. the house is having a tough time moving a bill that would help puerto rico deal with the $72 billion debt crisis. that seems to be momentarily stalled. can you talk about the problems of moving that legislation and what it would mean if it does pass why we need to pass anything at all to deal with puerto rico? rep. jordan: there is a host of concerns. first, there is the problem in puerto rico. one of the things many of us are hoping if there is legislation will be things to encourage economic growth. whether it is the wage policy they have there or a host of other things, we would like some more robust elements of that. ms. ferrechio: with a control board? rep. jordan: i will be totally honest with you. we are looking at the bill. we had a pretty intense debate at our weekly meeting monday night. what we don't want is a bailout.

what we don't want is to set some precedent that would put taxpayers on the hook down the road and be a bad precedent. so we are looking at this. there is supposed to be a markup today. we will see if that happens. i think this bill, the intention is to be helpful and to try not to do what i just described, not bail out, not set a bad precedent, but i think there is work still to do. based on the debate we had within the freedom caucus monday night, i know that is much bigger when you get to the republican conference and the entire congress, there is still plenty of work to do. ms. swain: interesting. ms. werner: another topic is the opioid legislation that has passed the senate and that leader mccarthy and speaker ryan want to act on in some form of the house. do you think that will happen? rep. jordan: yeah. one of the things you hear about traveling across central and north-central ohio which is the

fourth district, we hear from so many people. you hear from employers who have job openings and are trying to the potentialut applicants and employees cannot pass the drug screening, and you hear from commonplace judges and prosecutors just how serious this problem is. i think the solution is largely going to be solved with families and communities and churches, but i applaud senator portman and the work he is doing in the senate and others that are doing in the house. i think bob dole on the house side and others to the extent that we can be helpful is good. it needs to be done in a way that does not increase spending, but -- ms. ferrechio: the president has asked $2 billion for this. do you think you'll ever get any

of that money? rep. jordan: need to offset anything we need to do because you need to keep it all in context of we have a fiscal problem. you also need to keep it in the framework of federal government typically, these problems are typically solved much better at the local level, church level, family level, even the community level. i think that should be the primary focus for the fact that we are drawing attention to it and highlighting it, i think that can be helpful. ms. ferrechio: should the federal government play a larger role in talking to medical professionals about prescribing opioids, or should they stay out of it? rep. jordan: having hearings, talking about it, that is beneficial as well in sending that message because so much of this started from based on what i have heard from the prescription drugs that get abused and then the next the you know there is this cheap product on the street which is just scary, and what it does to some families also is what breaks your heart. ms. swain: we have just 30 seconds left. i want to bring you back to national politics.

some of the organizations in this town that really crack the numbers for the election cycle have said that it is time to think the house might be in play in the fall if donald trump is the nominee. perhaps even if senator cruz is the nominee. do you see any scenario coming out of the convention when you are concerned about control of the house? rep. jordan: i think this should be a republican year. you look at what we have seen the last seven years, 17 million on food stamps when president obama became president. 48 million today. the standing we have around the country, how we are viewed internationally, what our allies , what ourt us enemies think about us, the economy is on a bumpy rate of growth. this should be a huge republican year. we are having a huge fight and all that i think in the end we come together and we should win. when we win, this is where speaker ryan has been talking about when we win, here is what we need to do. we get about doing it. just go. make the changes that will help middle-class families.

that is the kind of year it should be. we will see. but that is the kind of year i hope it is going to be. we live in america. we live in the greatest country in the world. you should be optimistic. we are republicans. we believe in the conservative policy. we know free markets, free enterprise works. and so i am optimistic. , ms. swain: we sure covered a lot of ground. think you for being with us this week. erica warner is the chief reporter for "the washington examiner. we are back after our conversation with commitment jim jordan. he chairs the freedom caucus, the 30 plus members of the house givenresentatives, have speakers a bit of trouble over the past couple years. many members of the house of

you speaker ryan supports those numbers, yet they still support speaker ryan. it is a strange dynamic. it is not at all clear to me how it can actually work out once the robert it's the road. at a certain point, they will have to work out something and that will be spending bills at the higher budget number. mr. jordan did not quite make will you will clear to us whether he would be what to support those spending levels so i think it remains to be seen

how that plays out. ms. swain: a track record that was reported, one sign into law by the president says what about the process? ms. ferrechio: that it is impossible to sign spending bills -- to pass spending bills. every presidential election year, it makes everything hyper political in congress so it is tough to get bills to cross the finish line. the difference is the leadership is really gunning for it, passing 12 independent spending bills and you have some cooperation with democrats that might normally be missing. with that and a deal every bit as mentioned, the nomination of those two things gives some people hope that they will be able to not maybe pass all 12 but some individually and then another group would have to go in during a minibus. this is all kind of in the weeds, but the idea is to do some bills individually which is more cost-effective and generally more transparent, and i think that is what everyone is hoping for but jordan represents a group of members will make it difficult unless republicans decide this is something they

are going to go all in with the democrats. once they get the democrats on board, they don't have to worry about 40 or 50 or 60 conservatives who don't want to split the bill because they have 188 democrats that might go along with them and they get the number needed to pass the bill. all of this is unknown right now. we will start learning soon what direction they are going in because april is the time that they are going to start moving these individual spending bills. we will get an idea what is in them, who supports them, and what their prognosis is individually. ms. swain: what are you learning about speaker ryan's focus? we learned this week that he is taking himself off the list for a presidential election but he spent a lifetime talking about party philosophy. is that focus redirecting the republicans or the day-to-day taxes in the house?

ms. werner: he is on his agenda project which will apparently result in something short of legislation on a variety of topics from health-care to national security to welfare and poverty. at the same time as we have been discussing, it is very interesting that the divisions that have been in the house for years remain the divisions that caused speaker boehner his speakership and ryan is bringing everyone along and yet not getting results, not getting a budget passed, not getting perhaps spending bills passed, so we will see how it plays out. i think it is accurate to say that he has in a sense set his sights higher than the nitty-gritty of the legislative process and is instead working

on a broadvision that nobody can argue with because it doesn't require voting on something that don't want to vote on. ms. swain: we have one minute left and we have to comment on too strong positions of the interview on presidential politics both on what should , come out of cleveland this summer in terms of the process and also on the benghazi committee and how it affects hillary clinton. what did you learn? ms. ferrechio: i think most of the things about benghazi have been covered over by the e-mail dispute of the servers she had in her home. people are confusing the issue now. the benghazi story is on the back burner. i think republicans were hoping her tenure as head of the department of state and her handling of libya would be used to help show she is not someone who should be elected as president. no one is really talking about benghazi anymore. everyone is talking about the

e-mail server. it is not resonating with voters. she is still the front runner. all bernie sanders does continue to win a lot of states but he is , a different political animal that she is and that is part of the reason. i think republicans are frustrated that that is not becoming a bigger part of the discussion. the other part of this is what is going to happen in cleveland. i think jordan made a very good point that if the republican national committee tries to bring someone in who did not win at least several states, and that narrows it down to ted cruz and donald trump, the people will feel disenfranchised. i think that that is true and that is what makes this upcoming convention something akin to a really interesting match. you really don't know what is going to happen but it will not , be boring. ms. swain: thanks to both of you

for your time this week. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] the campaign 2016 bus continues its travels to visit winners from this years student camp competition. our bus visited sparks, nevada to recognize justice best for her surprise documentary on the wild horse population in the united states, titled "wildhorse management." our bus and headed to california to meet with winners in that state, including a visit to a middle school in san diego where congressman scott peters took recognizingceremony tristan cooper, della bruce, and jackie power. joinedswoman judy chu friends, family, and classmates to honor the second prize winners for their winning documentary on social security called "a sense of security." a special thanks to our cable

partners for helping to coordinate these community visits. remember every weekday this month on c-span, be sure to watch one of the top 21 winning at 6:50 a.m. eastern before "washington journal." >> coming up on our companion c-span2, house budget committee chair tom price on the fiscal year 2017 budget and his ideas for long-term budget reform. he is speaking to the committee for responsible federal budget. you will be able to watch it live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2 could]. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the house will convene for legislative business and efforts to consolidate its headquarters. they will take up a bill prohibiting the internal revenue service from rehiring workers that have been hired in preventing the irs from paying bonuses to its employees. the u.s. senate will be back at three clock p.m. eastern to

continue work on a bill for the federal aviation administration. the final test should come sometime this week. you can see the house live on c-span and see the senate live on our companion network c-span2. >> tonight on "the communicators," george ford and mark cooper, research director for the consumer federation of america, the bait the fcc's proposals allowing consumers to buy their own set-top boxes instead of writing them from cable providers, a move to open the set-topon in box market . >> we think we need competition in the set-top box market. we want competition, competition. some places have worked in some places have not. this is one place where a real has not -- it really has not.

-- lower more prices prices and more choices if we have competition in that space. >> the first question is do we have space in the set-top box? no because it's a component of the network and the most efficient way designed to televisionle service. it is the cheapest way and most efficient way to do it. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> our live coverage of the presidential race continues tuesday night for the new york state primary. for us at 9:00 p.m. eastern election results, candidate speeches, and fewer reaction. road to then the white house on c-span, c-span.org. >> and now john kasich

campaigned in new york this past weekend and stopped at a deli on upper east side manhattan. the governor spoke with reporters as he dined. >> hey. >> where are we going? >> right in here. >> steph curry. [laughter] >> hi, governor. [indistinct conversation]

>> hi. [indistinct chatter] >> come over here. >> it is great to be here with you. gov. kasich: when you eat a pickle, you have to put your finger up in the air like this. am i right? if you do that, it's not right. >> governor kasich, you said you would go to ireland if you became president. have you changed your mind? governor kasich: i never said my first trip was to ireland. where did you get that? no, why would i say that? i am not irish. i mean, there is nothing wrong

with it. there is nothing wrong with it. no. >> so, governor, ok. sorry. [indistinct conversation] [laughter] [indistinct conversation]

governor kasich: you know, i may have asked for matzah. the reporter said i was 29 points down. what you do when you get up? i said that in steph curry. -- put in steph curry. salad, chicken soup. and a drink. and i ate a pickle. two of them. i'm going to have one more. >> it's good, huh?

governor kasich: i'm going to have dinner with one of my daughters. she is 16-years-old. we're going to go out. do you have daughters? >> one. gov. kasich: do you have sons? >> one. gov. kasich: so on that basis, i'm going to assume you have two kids. give this man some publicity. talk about your restaurant. when did you start? >> my father, about 25 years ago. governor kasich: where are you from? >> originally from russia. governor kasich: we have to get the ukraine.

where are you from in ukraine? and when did you leave? .> in 1983 [indiscernible] governor kasich: i am going to have another pickle. three pickles -- i will take the remains to pierre. what is your specialty? >> we are very good on the chicken soup. matzoh balls. cornbread. governor kasich: where do you live? >> i live in brooklyn.

governor kasich: we appreciate you having us in here. no, no, i can't eat anymore. i have eaten so much, i cannot eat anymore. and i'm going to have dinner with my daughter. i am going to give this pastrami to kevin miller. kevin, come here. >> governor, is this better than lenny's in cleveland? governor kasich: do not try to trip me up. i make enough mistakes on my own. i am not getting in on that. i have an opinion. but i will not comment. i love soup.

it's good. mmm. what kind of desserts do you have? [laughter] >> we do apple strudel. baked apple strudel. governor kasich: do you do the baked apple strudel? can we have an apple strudel, cut into a little piece? so i will have a little piece. we have to have it in threes. >> sure, right away. governor kasich: wow. wonderful. >> thank you. governor kasich: yeah, for all of you who are here, people from new york. i could not have ever had a better time in any campaign,

than being able to campaign in new york, i mentioned earlier today, going to watertown. the only candidate who had been there before was teddy roosevelt. incredible. you know? we love to visit teddy's home. it is beautiful. how about that theater that we played in? the paramount? it was me, frank zappa. >> i don't think zappa was ever there. gov. kasich: dweezil zappa was there. [laughter] governor kasich: silly, isn't it? what do you think? yeah, i'm going to have a little strudel.

they have never seen me eating any dessert. did you cut it in three pieces? three pieces, without any of that whipped cream or fattening stuff. just strudel. three plates. who's here? ongoing to have a piece of strudel. -- i'm going to have a piece of struggle. strudel. you've earned it. three pieces. perfect. perfect. ok. there's plates right there. i'm going to make a mistake i know. there we go. ok, just so you could -- i will not eat my strudel with a knife. i will use my finger. here you go, shrimp. strudel for you.

we're going to eat it like this. here. wow. yeah, very good. is that apple in there? >> it is apple strudel. baklava. governor kasich: lovely. i commend this restaurant to everybody here. >> thank you very much. governor kasich: thank you. [laughter] governor kasich: i am getting tired of this already. ben, aren't you tired of this? what are you going to do when i leave, ben? where is your home? ben: brooklyn. governor kasich: oh, you are going to go home? ben: yeah. today, i am going to go home.

governor kasich: we are back on monday. are you coming up? >> i think so. governor kasich: what are you doing tonight? >> going to hang out in prospect park. governor kasich: where is prospect park? >> prospect park is a part in brooklyn. governor kasich: what are you going to do? >> right now? going to the bronx. governor kasich: really? so you are going to go there? >> probably. what are you going to do? governor kasich: i am going to go home. have dinner. and wait on my wife and daughters to come home. and then tomorrow, i think i am going to play golf. >> where? governor kasich: columbus.

>> what did you think of the dinner? governor kasich: i really want another pickle. but i don't want to read about it. [laughter] >> we have to go. governor kasich: thank you all. ok. well, what we're really interested in here are gathering delegates. i am not going to beat donald in new york. that's a tall order, but i think we will have momentum coming out of new york. and we are going to win delegates. that is what we want. >> what would you consider -- you just said it would be difficult to beat donald? what would you consider a good night? what would make you happy? governor kasich: i don't know. i am not a political guy, like that.

they will tell me if we did well. apparently we just did very well in indiana. that's what i'm told. i don't know if you all have heard, but governor sandoval has endorsed me. the very popular governor of nevada, so it is a very big thrill for me. he's a terrific guy with an 80% approval rating. not that high, maybe 70%. i'm also of course pleased about governor pataki. and i am thrilled about christine todd whitman. she will campaign for me all across the country. so really great, and sandoval, he is a wonderful guy, and i am thrilled to have him. >> what will bernie sanders do? governor kasich: i do not know what bernie sanders is going to do. i do not really follow him that closely. i need to get him on my playlist. >> do you think it is rigged?

governor kasich: no, i do not think it is rigged. let me ask you, that tv show, the one he had on tv, was that rigged? if somebody didn't get picked, did they jump up and say, "this is rigged!"? i don't think so. >> if you get to the convention in cleveland -- do you think -- governor kasich: there is no if in there. it will be when. and listen, at the end of the day i think the republican party , wants to pick somebody that can actually win in the polls. i am answering the question the way i want to answer. do you want to answer? let me ask you, what do you think? >> the problem with polling, if possible? governor kasich: i have done i think more than any other governor to make sure women on college campuses are safe. they have confidentiality.

and let the people who commit acts against them can be prosecuted. there is a time in this country for people to kind of work together on these issues. but that is politics in washington. the fact of the matter is, most states could learn from what we have done in our state. we are proud of what we have done. and we want to make sure that the perpetrators are prosecuted. that women have a safe place to go. and so she just ought to check out the legislation, she could probably learn a little bit. >> we have time for one more. >> with governor sandoval and governor pataki, are you concerned that more people like that will have to come out to -- governor kasich: no, i am not surprised. look, we hope we have a good group in washington. you know, i am not really that worked up.

because people endorse for a whole variety of reasons. and frankly, some of these endorsements really have no impact, no effect. sandoval has the whole package. he will matter. christine todd whitman, unbelievable lady. three-time governor of new york, we are getting the ones -- these are all fairly recent -- having senator d'amato here. for a long time. fantastic. so, you know, we are starting to gain some ground. you know, i think most people never thought there would be a convention. it is nothing more than, you know, a timing issue. and we are doing better and better every day. >> we have to go. thank you all. >> are you worried about -- >> governor, would you consider -- governor kasich: thank you.

>> thank you. governor kasich: pay, we have to pay. i will see you again. we will come back. >> governor -- governor kasich: thank you. thank you. thank you. [horn honking] >> ok, got to go.

please say hi to him for me. >> ok. >> we have got to go. [horn honking] >> coming up in just a moment, we will go live to the u.s. house of representatives for morning our speeches . the house will reconvene at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative business. they will consider several bills, including one dealing

with the homeland security department's efforts to consolidate its headquarters. therrow, we can expect house to take up a bill prohibiting the internal revenue service from rehiring workers that happen fired and preventing the irs from paying bonuses to its employees. and to live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. april 18, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable mo brooks to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempo